Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question. -first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015 -did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council -did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl. -TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search. "We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD So any suggestions on where to go, what to say?
Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question.
-first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015
-did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council
-did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl.
-TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver
Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search.
"We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing. Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015. Demerits disappear in 2yrs Insurance in 3yrs :)
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing.
Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years". Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law. Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving. No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs. If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot... $7,000 total. And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you! Now more on this... So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
250alp wrote:
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted. Convicted in absentia??
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government. The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that. But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that.
But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention. I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
argyll wrote:
The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention.
I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders! Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign. I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy. Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe. If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about. Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts. Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
argyll wrote:
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right.
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders!
Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign.
I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy.
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about.
Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts.
Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed. I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
jsherk wrote:
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed.
I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401. I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401.
I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ? Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ?
Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us." Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen "I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)" Check your facts
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us."
Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen
"I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)"
You also quoted incorrectly... Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL) 2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms: I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) or I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
You also quoted incorrectly...
Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL)
2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms:
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
or
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:
I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Hey! I'm from Sudbury Ontario. Hope that general talk is fine for this subject
I am very serious about looking for exact ruling about underfacing lighting
Section 14 clearly states:
Red and blue lights to the front restricted
(14.1) In addition to the lighting requirements in this Part, a police department vehicle may carry lamps that cast red and blue lights, but no other motor vehicle shall carry…
i was driving my dad's car when i was caught by the red light camera in Brampton. My dad would've to take time off work to go ask for a trial and then go to one.
Can i represent him? if yes, what do i need to do?
I was pulled over and told I went through a red light during a right turn. I learned through a friend who is a police constable that the one who pulled me over is new to the job (under a year, and possibly even the first month or two of real duty).
I was given a ticket for $180. I have some questions:
(1) Is this offense automatically associated with 3 demerit points? I see no mention of them on…
I got a ticket for 'Disobey Stop Sign' in November of 2013 (in York Region), requested disclosure and went to court in August of 2014. At my first appearance, I did not plea but requested an ajournment to to consult legal advice. The JOP set the next appearance in September.
I contacted a paralegal about my options. He told me that on my next appearance, if the police officer did not show, the…
I had a trial and found guilty, but the trial seemed to go wrong since the beginning.
The JP asked me if i am intending to take the stand- I said NO.
I asked how to submit my evidence-documents and photos.
JP said-i have to take the stand if i want to submit evidence.(Now i am finding this is wrong-i could introduce my evidence during cross examination and my defense would be much stronger)
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for motorists who drive at over 40 km/h at under 60 km/h zones, speed at 50 km/h at 60 to 90 km/h areas and…
Make big trucks go slower and the roads will become safer.
Obvious, isn't it? It's also obvious when you look out the window that the world is flat.
Last Monday, truckers in Ontario tried to mount a convoy to Queen's Park to show their opposition to electronic speed limiters. These devices, electronic chips in trucks' engine management systems, restrict speeds…
I was out on a four lane highway around Orangeville Ontario and I noticed a school bus coming south (I was going north). I kept my eyes on the bus in case it was going to stop. As I approached it, it was slowing down a little, but no lights, and especially no arm with the STOP sign. As I was just about to pass the bus, I still did not see the lights, nor did I see the STOP sign.
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
My son was making a right turn at the intersection he had a green so slowed down looked and proceeded into the turn. It was pouring rain and the was a big pool of water as he got arround the curb. He tried to keep the car going sharp right however it slid into the car making a left turn. the lane he was turning into is very narrow and at a very busy corner. He paniced and left the scene only…
I had an collision the other day. I was turing left and ran into a car going straight in the opposite direction. The insurance company has already determined that I'm at fault, since I made the left turn. But I'm wondering whether I should go on trail and at least I might get rid of the ticket. The ticket was under 142(1)
I was told that if I go on court, both the guy I hit and the officer who…
question for a friend of mine.....says she got a 3 day suspension for giving a A on a roadside. Thing is she wasnt driving. She is a g2 driver and the car was parked in a parking lot, she just ran out to get something and turned the car on. Can a 3 day be issued if you arent driving on a highway - (I've read for impaired it doesnt matter, but 3 day isnt criminal)? And is there any way to…
I can't find the category for this post so I'm posting it here.
Two questions...
1. Are golf carts considered a 'vehicle' under the Highway traffic act? I know carts can't drive across roads or on roads but if you try to bring one from the USA into Canada they are considered a 'vehicle'.
2. If you are on private property are you allowed to carry 'opened' alcohol in your golf cart? I know golf…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural area and I sometimes see vehicles doing mail delivery. The vehicle then started accelerating and…
I was pulled over yesterday in a community safety zone and told I was doing 84 in a 50. When i passed the officer I looked at my odometer and I was only doing 64. I was given a summons on the spot to appear in court at the end of June. Do I have any chance in this if it comes down to his word over mine. I was in the car alone but have travelled these same roads every day, twice a day for 6 years…
who is at fault when :a) a passenger opens door and jumps out of vehicle onto the road with traffic. b) he gets hit by a car travelling in the adjoining lane. c) traffic lights were green. d) pedestrian crossing was further up and indicated "no crossing" light e) the vehicle that he exited from leaves the scene as soon as accident occurred. f) no charges have been laid after police filed report…
